Do we need the Bible and God to be Moral?

[Ouroboros]

From the Knowledge thread that has grown too much.

 

Do we need the Bible and/or God to be moral?

 

Considering that the OT contains genocides performed by the people chosen by God, killing and murdering women and children at the command of God.

 

How can that be a good moral code?

 

And how does Evolution and an non-religious (humanist) moral code compare?

[Vulgaris Prime]

From the Knowledge thread that has grown too much.

 

Do we need the Bible and/or God to be moral?

 

Considering that the OT contains genocides performed by the people chosen by God, killing and murdering women and children at the command of God.

 

How can that be a good moral code?

 

And how does Evolution and an non-religious (humanist) moral code compare?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In before anyone needs asbestos underwear.

 

I've taken to debating this with people on other forums, and their entire response to the OT and its atrocities is usually "well it was a different time" or "well that's not part of what you're supposed to follow anymore" or other such cop-outs.

 

Best never to ask the queestion, because it always ends the same way - with trouble.

[Skankboy]

I'm pretty sure there were a couple of million Confucianists that would agree that divinity is unnecessary for a moral society. Too bad the veneer of Communism and it's bastard kid, Maoism had to go and mess with a good thing...

[Checkmate]

Nope. Don't need "god" for a damn thing. Unless you feel like scaring children and gullible adults.

 

I was a moral and ethical person BEFORE I got religion, WHILE I had religion, and I (SURPRISE) am STILL moral and ethical without ye olde heavenly Bogey Man lurking about.

[Ouroboros]

In the NT Jesus said we should hate our parents to follow him instead, while Paul said we should honor our parents to live long.

 

It's a confusing code to follow, if it tells us to do conflicting acts.

[Mr. Neil]

Do we need the Bible and God to be Moral?

Like a fish needs a bicycle.

 

As far as I'm concerned, evolution has no place in a discussion about morality. Evolution is a natural process, not unlike photosynthesis. When someone asks me how evolution accounts for morality, I just stare at them as though they've asked the stupidest question of all time. And in a way, they did.

 

I'll repeat what I said in the other topic. Wishful thinking doesn't make a concept true. What you want to be true and what is actually true are two different things. No amount of wishing is going to make God pop into existence and write a special list of moral principles for everyone to follow. It's not going to happen.

 

Either God exists or he doesn't, and if he doesn't, then it's up to us to do a little work and come up with this morality by ourselves. No one else is going to help us.

[Mythra]

In before anyone needs asbestos underwear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Way to go, vp.

 

I don't know if it was just me, but that was freakin funny.

 

Arguing with christians does tend to broil the bacon just a little.

 

But about the morality question. Is there some kind of a moral code that is intrinsic in human beings independent of religion?

 

There must be.

 

If not, how can we sit here as human beings, judging things that God supposedly did to be immoral? Or are we just saying that God violates his own standards?

[Isak The Newt]

(gapes) aw my poor aching head... god gave us the privilege to be moral so he says... i dont trust him!

[Ouroboros]

If God created Evil, why do we need God to become good?

 

God created Evil so he has a higher responsibility and is completely immoral, since it was his idea to create the dualistic worldview.

 

So what is the greater Evil, the Devil or the Devils Creator?

[crazy-tiger]

From the Knowledge thread that has grown too much.

 

Do we need the Bible and/or God to be moral?

 

Considering that the OT contains genocides performed by the people chosen by God, killing and murdering women and children at the command of God.

 

How can that be a good moral code?

 

And how does Evolution and an non-religious (humanist) moral code compare?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I just said on the Knowledge thread...

With God, we exist in a world where morality is defined by the whim of a supreme being who changes it according to the situation, the culture, the time, etc...

and as TJR666 wrote in the same thread...

Within the evolutionary framework, there is no higher authority than man himself, so only fallible human preferences can determine right from wrong. And as we know, such preferences shift from culture to culture, time to time, situation to situation, etc.

So, the God moral code is dictated to us and can be changed at a moments notice. (but until then, it won't change... means it lags behind changes in society) Meanwhile, the non-God moral code is arrived at by general concensus and changes slowly. (means it keeps up with societal changes)

 

Conclusion? The non-God moral code is the one to stick with, and the God moral code is outdated and flawed.

[Ouroboros]

 

 

Way to go, vp.

 

I don't know if it was just me, but that was freakin funny.

 

Arguing with christians does tend to broil the bacon just a little. 

 

But about the morality question.  Is there some kind of a moral code that is intrinsic in human beings independent of religion?

 

There must be.

 

If not, how can we sit here as human beings, judging things that God supposedly did to be immoral?  Or are we just saying that God violates his own standards?

We're preparing for the eternal BBQ, that's another reason for the abestos pants.

 

I think we have an understanding of the dualistic view, that there are good things and bad things, good acts and bad acts, which we sum up as the word Moral Values or Moral Code. And it's part of our brain. The frontal lobe plays an imortant role in this.

 

But the definition of what is moral or not, what to include or exclude is totally different from person to person and from culture to culture too.

 

We have a rudimentary understanding that it's not good to kill other people, but I think it's a development from that we want to survive and save our species. If any species started to attack it self, it would die out very fast, so yes, I think that this part of morality has evolved. Now some people are born with reduced or completely without this ability to know (thru empathy) that it's wrong to kill or hurt other people. (Sociopaths)

 

If we had a divine implanted chip in our head from birth, no one would ever doubt this moral code “not to kill”. But since some people are born without that ability to discern it, it means that it’s not an automatic, spiritual, gift that we all get, but a biological structure that is genetic and also sociologically cultured and nurtured.

 

We know that sometimes we are allowed to kill someone else, like self defense, war time, and the controversial death penalty. And even in a self defense case, it’s really hard to know if the surviving person planned it or had intentions to kill. Or just take the example of the soldier in Iraq a year ago, that shot the man that was on the ground without a weapon, because the soldier thought he was a threat. Was it morally right or wrong to kill the person on the floor?

 

Morality is just a wishy-washy word for a personal opinion of right and wrong. We don’t know what is right and wrong until after the fact; after that someone has done something.

 

If we bring up 9/11 for instance, I consider that acts of the terrorists were wrong. But I can’t say that it was immoral, since the definition of moral is based on the unique worldview that’s in America only. I still think what they did was extremely wrong, since I think it’s wrong to kill innocent people to support an ideology. But US turned around and killed innocent people in a war against Iraq, and that is still considered morally right by some people. So when they kill people in the name of their ideology it’s immoral, but when we kill people in the name of our ideology then suddenly it’s moral I think it was wrong both ways, and “morality” is just a fucked up word that never should have been invented, it’s just as stupid as the word “sin”.

 

That is wishy-washy!

[BuddhistCommunist]

Anyone who needs religion to have morals is a shitty person... and I hate to say there are alot of shitty people.

[Druid]

I would agrue that to believe in the Christian God you have to at least turn off your moral compass and deny basic human ideas of justice.

 

For all Christians that believe that you must believe in Jesus to go to heaven please answer these questions.

 

Do you think Hilter would have been morally right if he said to the Jews, if they renounced their faith he would not kill them, or send them to a concentration camp, and restore their civl rights and property?

 

The point of the question is this (in case you don't get it).

 

Christian say God is just because he gives you the option of believing and going to heaven, or not believing and going to hell. Here Hitler gives what is pretty much the same option.

 

Christians say God is caring and loving cos he doesn't want us to go to hell and therefore gives the option. Is Hilter acting lovingly in this case?

 

Do your morals come from God? Are his morals superior to your ideas of compassion and social justice?

 

Please answer the questions and don't just give Christian dogma on the requirements to go to heaven.

[godlessgrrl]

Do we need the Xian god to be moral?

 

No.

 

IIRC Simone de Beauvoir pointed out that people who do not believe in some kind of religion are actually more moral than those who do, because for non-believers there is no one to hold accountable for their actions but themselves. No big daddy sky god telling you what to do, and no fiery hell to keep the fear of eternal punishment in mind. Also no divine tempter to blame for one's shitty actions, either.

 

Fwiw.

[Vixentrox]

If anything, the bible is a cause of IMMORALITY.

[Mythra]

Immorality is a relative term and it changes with the times. Just look at the Old Testament. We laugh about some of the things that were deemed immoral there.

 

I mean, working on Saturday used to get you killed.

 

Cursing God used to get you killed.

 

Gettin raped and not screaming would get you killed.

 

Touching the ark would get you killed.

 

Damn, it's a wonder there were any israelites left, as much as they killed each other for doin petty shit.

[dogmatically_challenged]

We can come to some of the same conclusions that our ancestors came to and that is because we all have something in common. Humaness.

 

Really though, we should have a real method in anything important and we should totaly reject superstitious ideas of morality altogether.

 

To reason and to empathise is inherent in us even if we do damage to eachother from time to time.

 

To reason and empathize is the best way to let consistency and flexability win out over the other in a ballanced way. We all can build on this and be objective in our methods in reaching our goals in being decent to one another if the no no's and the do's are based on what can be demonstrated to be damaging or beneficial objectively. In many cases we can do this, while the superstitionists have only blind obediance to commandments and taboo's from thier holybooks.

 

We can not offer humanity the perfect solution in what is right and what is wrong. Religionists are the dope dealers who got us all hooked on "Perfect" and "Absolute Truth". The cost of the drug is to throw reason and empathy out the window and there are cases were this is demonratably true. If a method has as it's very foundation blind obediance to an imaginary friend then some were down the line irrational descrimination as well as non issues taking precedence of rational descrimination and reall issues that are actually relevant to humanity will happen. There is no justification of mindlessly obeying. Nor is there any empathic or rational justification for voting based on blind obedience.

[Mythra]

I live by a new morality now. I try to avoid doing shit that will get me thrown in jail.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I live by a new morality now.  I try to avoid doing shit that will get me thrown in jail.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hehe!

 

I think we have made real progress in making laws were the do's and don'ts are contingent on protection and relevant responsibilities and we can all have some satisfaction to some degree if we allow our laws to be based on non religious methods.

 

No xer or religionists have the exact same rules from thier invisible friends.

 

Fact is secular laws are the most equitable since religion can't agree.

 

Religionists should show some gratitude for what our Founding Fathers have given us and not try to ruin it.

[Vixentrox]

I agree....not that secular laws are perfect by any means. But they are lot better than biblical law.

[Ouroboros]

Yaymen! (like a yay and amen at the same time)

 

I agree. The Constitution was built on the basic rights for a person, and not the basic rights for God. That's the big difference between the Constitution and the Commandments.

 

The commandments were in place to please a God.

While the Constitution is in place to give people their true and undeniable rights in life.

[Mr. Neil]

I would love to have a Christian explain to me some time how any of the commandments, other than "don't steal" and "don't murder", actually apply to a system of justice.

 

Especially the covet one. I'd like to meet one person who follows that one.

[Ouroboros]

I would love to have a Christian explain to me some time how any of the commandments, other than "don't steal" and "don't murder", actually apply to a system of justice.

 

Especially the covet one.  I'd like to meet one person who follows that one.

The whole system of free market and advertizing is based on the idea that people "covet" things. Otherwise advertizing wouldn't work.

 

Everyone wants a bigger TV than the neighbor, or a better car.

 

Besides "stealing" and "murder" is a very loose term, that doesn't cover all situations, since killing people in a war is accepted and not considered immoral. Or stealing from a thief something that he took from you from starters. There's so many gray zones, so a law book is needed, and a system to modify the law according to new culture. A static book would force society to modify the culture to the book instead, and the law would never change.

[dogmatically_challenged]

The whole system of free market and advertizing is based on the idea that people "covet" things. Otherwise advertizing wouldn't work.

 

Everyone wants a bigger TV than the neighbor, or a better car.

 

Besides "stealing" and "murder" is a very loose term, that doesn't cover all situations, since killing people in a war is accepted and not considered immoral. Or stealing from a thief something that he took from you from starters. There's so many gray zones, so a law book is needed, and a system to modify the law according to new culture. A static book would force society to modify the culture to the book instead, and the law would never change.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tyranny would rule if we used the paper god as a method for laws or morality. In many social situations we already have tyranny. We see it in our communities in which we live everyday.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I see you down there TJR666. A penny for your thoughts?